Christians and Atheists are 99.99% in agreement

[Too Few Lions]

Atheists reject 100% of the gods that have ever been posited.  Christians reject 99.99% of the gods that have ever been posited, retaining only the 1 god they believe in.  Agreeing on 99.99% of anything is almost unheard of.  Christians and Atheists should be able to get along.  We are more like each other than humans and chimps.  With our level of agreement, we could form a coalition government in a parliamentary system.

I hope this was a joke! To me it seems 100% proof that politics and religion should be kept well apart.

I'd look at it another way, you believe in your god, I and the other atheists on this forum don't. Therefore in terms of religious beliefs we are poles apart. Political views are something entirely different, and I don't base those on my lack of belief in gods.

[BullyforBronto]

Political views are something entirely different, and I don't base those on my lack of belief in gods.

Sure, but my political views are based in critical thought, so the two aren't that disparate. What is the percentage of "Tea Partiers" that are theists? Or, better, born again, fundamentalist Christians? I'm guessing the number is in the 90th percentile.

[Sandra Craft]

I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.

Don't you think it possible for a politician, at least an honest and honorable one (OK, I'm living in a dreamland but go with it for a moment), to separate his personal beliefs and preferences from what is right or constitutional to impose on others, to keep the beliefs that guide the choices he makes for himself separate from the choices he makes in the name of the public?  For instance, I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't vote to make or keep it illegal.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

This thread appears to be about minimising the importance of your faith in your world view to make you appear more attractive to atheists, that reads as slightly disingenuous to me. You are a pastor and as such I can't imagine that your faith doesn't pervade every aspect of your world view all the time. Thus everything you say and do are informed by your faith. It's that situation that I feel would make it impossible for atheists to form a coalition with you, or anybody like you, as I don't believe you can truly separate your faith from your day-to-day opinions; how could you?

Well, you've made quite a few assumptions without having any personal knowledge to back them up, but I suppose most of us do the same. You've taken certain facts such as "you are a pastor" and assumed that everything in my life is informed by that. The fact that I am a pastor or a Christian has nothing to do with my mandolin playing or the fact that I like Chilean Sea Bass.  It is one aspect of my life, and human lives are invariably complex.  I'm sure I have inconsistencies in my life, as do you, and things that appear irreconcilable. My point in the OP was, in a very light-hearted way, to emphasize that as humans there is more that unites us than separates us. I disagree with many Christians on many matters, and agree with many atheists on many others.  You've lumped me into a single category and made a prejudicial determination about my attitudes on the entirety of life.  But that's a pretty standard, human response.   

What would you say if asked your opinion on abortion? Would it be informed from a completely dogma free opinion? I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.

While I have a high regard for all human life, including such life in utero,   I also think that government should stay out of the private, moral decisions of individuals. So while I may disagree with someone about the advisability of an abortion in a particular case, I accept the constitutional scheme set out in Roe v. Wade and its progeny.  In other words, it's none of my business, generally, what a woman does with her pregnancy.

What dogma do I carry that cannot be ignored in a political context?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

What I don't understand is that Christians have reasons that they use to not believe in 99.99% of the gods and, although these same reasons apply equally to their god of choice, they still decide to believe in their god.

This irrational logic cannot be trusted, and certainly must not be allowed to taint government decisions.

You don't know that it's irrational until you have asked a particular Christian why he/she believes in Jesus but not in Zeus.  He/she may have a rational reason, or at least one that is not irrational. 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.

Don't you think it possible for a politician, at least an honest and honorable one (OK, I'm living in a dreamland but go with it for a moment), to separate his personal beliefs and preferences from what is right or constitutional to impose on others, to keep the beliefs that guide the choices he makes for himself separate from the choices he makes in the name of the public?  For instance, I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't vote to make or keep it illegal.

Exactly.  A Christian politician could very well feel strongly about a particular moral issue, but have an equally strong feeling about separation of church & state, or individual liberty, or some other political principle.  Sometimes principles collide, and the politician has to strike a balance between the two.  There is nothing outrageous about someone being personally against abortion, but coming down in favor of individual liberty when considering public policy.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Ecurb, I like the sentiment, but we are idealogically immiscible.

Only on the single issue of the existence of one god.  It is quite possible that politically we might be aligned on 99 issues while being opposed on one religious issue.  My general point is that theists and atheists often miss opportunities to work together because they focus on their differences.  Theists are probably worse about this than atheists.

[Stevil]

You don't know that it's irrational until you have asked a particular Christian why he/she believes in Jesus but not in Zeus.  He/she may have a rational reason, or at least one that is not irrational. 

For example?

[xSilverPhinx]

Could you please firstly define what you mean by 'rational' in this case and how it differs, if it does, from 'meaningful'?

I really don't see how any religious philosophy can be rational ???, and I'm not talking about "rational" in the Pascal's Wager sense.

[Tank]

I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.

Don't you think it possible for a politician, at least an honest and honorable one (OK, I'm living in a dreamland but go with it for a moment), to separate his personal beliefs and preferences from what is right or constitutional to impose on others, to keep the beliefs that guide the choices he makes for himself separate from the choices he makes in the name of the public?  For instance, I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't vote to make or keep it illegal.

I think that some theists can compartmentalise very effectively and in a secular society, like the UK, where overt religious belief can often work against a politician things are generally ok. Tony Blair kept his theistic beliefs very much to himself while he was in politics. However in the USA where a politician will often play the religion card to get elected they can hardly then do an about turn when in office and become wonderfully secular. Particularly the Republicans. Until recently I thought GOP meant 'Gods Own Party' 

[Tank]

This thread appears to be about minimising the importance of your faith in your world view to make you appear more attractive to atheists, that reads as slightly disingenuous to me. You are a pastor and as such I can't imagine that your faith doesn't pervade every aspect of your world view all the time. Thus everything you say and do are informed by your faith. It's that situation that I feel would make it impossible for atheists to form a coalition with you, or anybody like you, as I don't believe you can truly separate your faith from your day-to-day opinions; how could you?

Well, you've made quite a few assumptions without having any personal knowledge to back them up, but I suppose most of us do the same. You've taken certain facts such as "you are a pastor" and assumed that everything in my life is informed by that. The fact that I am a pastor or a Christian has nothing to do with my mandolin playing or the fact that I like Chilean Sea Bass.  It is one aspect of my life, and human lives are invariably complex.  I'm sure I have inconsistencies in my life, as do you, and things that appear irreconcilable. My point in the OP was, in a very light-hearted way, to emphasize that as humans there is more that unites us than separates us. I disagree with many Christians on many matters, and agree with many atheists on many others.  You've lumped me into a single category and made a prejudicial determination about my attitudes on the entirety of life.  But that's a pretty standard, human response.   

What would you say if asked your opinion on abortion? Would it be informed from a completely dogma free opinion? I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.

While I have a high regard for all human life, including such life in utero,   I also think that government should stay out of the private, moral decisions of individuals. So while I may disagree with someone about the advisability of an abortion in a particular case, I accept the constitutional scheme set out in Roe v. Wade and its progeny.  In other words, it's none of my business, generally, what a woman does with her pregnancy.

What dogma do I carry that cannot be ignored in a political context?

Nice response. I appologise for baiting you a little to see how you responded. Your response was rational and measured, unlike one member who told me that with me as a Father my kids would surely go to hell. Yes, I don't know you very well yet, but on the basis of this response I'm really glad you came a joined in.

Living in the UK it's quite difficult to actually have theological discussion in public. After reading The God Delusion in 2006 I didn't believe it was possible that some of the characters that Dawkins described could really exist. So I joined the Richard Dawkins Forum (RDF) and soon found that the type of theists Dawkins describes do inhabit the Internet in a big way. I don't think one can completly extrapolate from the self selecting audience on a forum and the real world, but on forums one does tend to get some serious nut jobs who are so bound up in their faith they have lost almost all ability to see and interact with the real world.

You appear to take a very pragmatic view of your faith and that's fine by me. You can draw an effective dividing line between your world view and that of others. I just wish more people could do that.

[DeterminedJuliet]

I would contend that it would be impossible for you to hold an opinion that is not influenced by your Christian world view. That's perfectly acceptable but this does illustrate why a theist carries a whole load of dogma that can't be ignored in a political context.

Don't you think it possible for a politician, at least an honest and honorable one (OK, I'm living in a dreamland but go with it for a moment), to separate his personal beliefs and preferences from what is right or constitutional to impose on others, to keep the beliefs that guide the choices he makes for himself separate from the choices he makes in the name of the public?  For instance, I'm personally opposed to abortion but I wouldn't vote to make or keep it illegal.

Exactly.  A Christian politician could very well feel strongly about a particular moral issue, but have an equally strong feeling about separation of church & state, or individual liberty, or some other political principle.  Sometimes principles collide, and the politician has to strike a balance between the two.  There is nothing outrageous about someone being personally against abortion, but coming down in favor of individual liberty when considering public policy.

I agree with what Tank said, if someone had this kind of attitude, I would have no problem with them in a political office. 

[Gawen]

Well, you've made quite a few assumptions without having any personal knowledge to back them up, but I suppose most of us do the same. You've taken certain facts such as "you are a pastor" and assumed that everything in my life is informed by that.

Our assumptions cannot be helped, sorry to say, what with all the drive-by idiots and considerably more conservative theists...unlike yourself...that frequent the board.
Forgive us our trespass.....*winkin with a grin*
Welcome to HAF.
However, if you are a Christian Pastor, you should know that your life, and your belief in the after life revolves around that Christianity and by default, your life should be guided and defined by it. As for politics, Jesus says to "give no thought for the morrow" and "do not resist the evil of others". It should be anathema for you to even consider a future politician and equally abhorrent to watch Christian Politicians swear an oath to their office.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

You don't know that it's irrational until you have asked a particular Christian why he/she believes in Jesus but not in Zeus.  He/she may have a rational reason, or at least one that is not irrational. 

For example?

If a person has a religious experience involving Jesus which is powerful enough to convince that person that he/she had encountered Jesus (like it or not, such experiences occur), then that person has a reason for believing in Jesus.  Since he/she has had no such experience with Zeus or Thor or Baal, he/she has a reason, based in personal experience, for believing in Jesus but not in Zeus or Thor or Baal.  If you have personally experienced X, you have some basis for believing that X exists, and therefore are not irrational for having that belief.  You may interpret that experience differently than another observer, but you are not just founding your belief on a holy book or what someone else has told you. You have had some personal experience that forms the foundation of your belief in one thing, whereas you may not have any such basis for a belief in something else.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

Could you please firstly define what you mean by 'rational' in this case and how it differs, if it does, from 'meaningful'?

I really don't see how any religious philosophy can be rational ???, and I'm not talking about "rational" in the Pascal's Wager sense.

"Rational" simply means based on or in accordance with reason or logic. If there is a "reason" for believing in something, and one's thought process in arriving at the belief generally follows the rules of logic, it's rational. To tie it in with "meaningful", a person may have a "meaningful" religious experience that convinces that person that Jesus is "alive" in some manner.  Then that person may examine some ancient historical documents and find some evidence that Jesus was historical.  The combination of these two factors in a logical manner can give rise to a belief that the historical Jesus was who Christianity has claimed - the son of God.  Since that faith is based on both personal experience and historical analysis, it is not irrational, even though it may not convince anyone else.